Safe injecting spaces - while counter-intuitive because you're assisting people in taking drugs - are arguably the most effective way to reduce the harms of some illegal drugs
While it's a complex relationship to untangle, there's quite compelling evidence that providing high-quality healthcare to prisoners saves money and reduces crime
Conversely, cashless welfare, which is popular because we love to moralise about what people do with the money the govt gives them, are very unlikely to achieve their stated aims
So honestly I find it completely unsurprising that, it some cases, the cheapest thing to do for homeless people is to give them money, even if that seems counter-intuitive to some
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Recently, John Ioannidis, of "Most Published Research Findings Are False" fame, published a commentary piece on COVID-19 and global action
I thought it would be good to do a bit of peer-review on twitter 1/n
2/n You can find the paper here - it is a classic commentary piece, which means it is mostly the perspective of the author: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ec…
3/n Given the author's very strong public stance since early March, it is perhaps unsurprising that the main message of the piece appears to be that COVID-19 is not very bad but government actions are
Men* with deep voices more likely** to be unfaithful***, research**** claims
*Chinese university students
**p=0.018
***to score higher on a self-report tool rating attitudes towards infidelity (r² = 0.22)
****single correlational study, n=234
I have great respect for people willing to take on the difficult question of balancing direct COVID-19 harms against the damage that control measures can do
I have no respect at all for people who minimize the harms of COVID-19 in order to make this argument
Yes, there are harms to disease-prevention measures. We should certainly be weighing these against the potential harms that unmitigated epidemics do and think carefully about our choices
But pretending that we can largely ignore COVID-19 without cost is just a disingenuous and nonsensical position that flies in the face of all evidence gathered to date
It doesn't really improve from there. These exact measures - or virtually identical ones - have been attempted in pretty much every country across the world for aged care
Unfortunately, it is REALLY HARD to keep COVID-19 out
This represents a very basic misunderstanding of COVID-19 risk - THERE IS NO EASY DELINEATION OF LOW/HIGH RISK
Fun fact: Trump's doctor being an osteopath in any country but the U.S. would be super weird quackery but because osteopathy is weirdly integrated into medicine in the states it's pretty much normal there
Even more interesting is the history of osteopathy in the US, which started as pure quackery and then slowly drifted towards legitimacy over 150 years